Integration of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the European Legal System.
An EU Perspective

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to thank the Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights, organisers of the 1^st Annual Conference, for having invited me here today. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to make a presentation on the current state of play of the EU's views on the integration of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the European Legal System.

My presentation will be divided into two major parts: the bilateral framework and the multilateral framework.

1. The bilateral framework

The relationship with countries in Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union is mainly based on bilateral treaties negotiated and concluded over the last years. The EU has concluded with all countries in Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, so-called Europe Agreements.

On the other hand, it concluded with the countries of the former Soviet Union so-called Partnership and Co-operation Agreements, PCAs.

All these agreements contain clauses concerning the protection of intellectual property rights. We applied in these agreements a standard clause which aims at improving the protection of intellectual property rights in the countries concerned. For example, the PCA with the Russian Federation, signed in 1994 and entered into force in December 1997, foresees that

'Russia shall continue to improve the protection of intellectual, industrial and commercial property in order to provide, by the end of the 5^th year after the entry into force of the PCA, for a level of protection similar to that provided in the Community, including comparable means of enforcing such rights.'

In addition, the Russian Federation is obliged to accede to a number of international conventions on the protection of intellectual property rights within that deadline.

The timeframes and the conventions to which the partner-countries vary from country to country. However, the general idea remains the same: countries in Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union, sooner or later, need to have system for the protection of intellectual property rights in place which is similar to what we have in the European Community.

As you know, the EU intends to even deepen its relationship with a number of countries. We initiated negotiations leading to the accession to the EU of countries in Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states. This will imply that these countries, once Member States of the EU, will not only have to have 'similar' IPR protection, but have to fully implement our Directives, Regulations, etc, on which we agreed within the EU.

On the EU level, we have already harmonised a number of areas relating to IPR: five copyright directives are currently in force, we established a Community trademark and a Community design right, we created a detailed system for the protection of geographical indications, etc.

On the other hand, enforcement of intellectual property rights lies in the hands of the Member States of the European Union. At the Community level, however, we only harmonised the measures to be taken to combat trade in infringing products at the external borders of the European Union.

But we do not stop harmonising our IPR system further. A Community patent is under preparation and we also adopted legislation to implemented the two recent WIPO treaties on copyright and related rights in the Information Society.

While the implementation of the obligations of Eastern European countries under the Europe Agreement is now more or less part of the EU accession process, the dialogue with countries from the former Soviet Union takes place in a number of bodies created under the respective PCAs: Co-operation Councils, Co-operation Committees and various sub-committees. These bodies meet on a regular basis where we discuss the progress made by out partner-countries in the implementation of their obligations under the respective PCAs.

For the Russian Federation, we intensified this dialogue through an EU-Russia Action Plan on Intellectual Property Rights. Last year, we were able to agree already on a number of priority actions to be taken by the Russian Government in areas of major deficiencies, i.e. the protection of copyright and trademarks as well as in the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The timing of this Conference is insofar just right as the deadline for the implementation of these priority actions runs until 1 July 2000. We hope that the Russian Government will be able to report on the progress made with the priority actions at our next bilateral meeting.

The EU is fully aware of the difficulties many of these countries face to live up to their commitments under the bilateral agreements. The European Community and its Member States, therefore, grant substantial technical assistance to the institutions of these countries, already for many years, under the PHARE and TACIS programmes.

This co-operation aims at updating the legislative framework, establishing the necessary institutions as well as ensure adequate enforcement mechanisms for the protection of intellectual property rights.

I would like to highlight some essential elements of these programmes provided by the European Community. Support to institutions and governments, building on the experience and goodwill generated in pilot projects, technical assistance and training are typically provided to different government agencies preparing the necessary legislation and the setting up of physical conditions for the administration of intellectual property rights.

Another important area is the support to enforcement agencies, in particular the setting up of administrative as well as judicial bodies for resolving IPR disputes in order to ensure the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights. This is a crucial element for the protection of intellectual property rights.

Finally, more horizontal measures are normally part of these programmes, such as training of customs officials, judges and attorneys, specific action vis-à-vis universities and education environment as well as action aimed at increasing public awareness.

2. The multilateral framework

Apart from the activities in the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the main international instrument for the protection of intellectual property rights is the 'Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights' established under the World Trade Organisation (WTO TRIPs Agreement).

Let me give you brief overview about the current state of play of the TRIPs Agreement before talking about its relevance for countries in Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union.

The TRIPs Agreement entered into force on 1 January 1995. It was a major step forward in the global protection of intellectual property rights, in that it established minimum rights for right-holders and adequate enforcement mechanisms that would apply in all WTO Members.

The TRIPs Agreement, by consolidating international rules and establishing minimum standards in the major areas of intellectual property rights, is now one of the driving forces behind innovation and technological progress.

The TRIPs Agreement provides for a significant number of new obligations for many WTO Members. Therefore, transitional periods were agreed upon to enable WTO Members to adopt their legislation and enforcement mechanisms to be fully compatible with their obligations resulting from the TRIPs Agreement.

Developed country WTO Members had a transitional period of 1 year, i.e. until 1 January 1996. Developing country WTO Members and Members-in-transition, basically, had until 1 January 2000. Least-developed country WTO Members have until 1 January 2006, but may even ask for an additional transitional period.

A TRIPs Council was established under the TRIPs Agreement. It will have a major task to fulfil over the next two years: the review of the implementing legislation of developing country WTO Members and new WTO Members. Such a review was already undertaken from 1996 to 1998 for developed country WTO Members.

We are facing now the review of the legislation of more than 70 developing country WTO Members. There may even be more, depending on future accessions to the WTO. Actually, this week in Geneva, the TRIPs Council reviews the IPR legislation of more than 20 developing WTO Members. These reviews will allow us to assess any specific implementation difficulties, but we remain confident that there will not be many.

However, the work in the WTO is not limited to reviewing legislation. Under the so-called 'built-in agenda' contained in the TRIPs Agreement, which relates to those provisions and subject matters where the TRIPs Agreement calls upon further work or subsequent review of existing provisions, work is currently being undertaken with regard to geographical indications, exceptions to patentability and the built-in reviews of the Agreement itself.

As you know, the EU also advocates for a New Round within the WTO to further liberalise trade. At the Seattle Ministerial Conference, a variety of proposals were made by the European Community in relation to an improvement of the TRIPs Agreement. The areas where we see a need to further enhance protection relate i.a. to additional protection for geographical indications and the incorporation into the TRIPs Agreement of developments on intellectual property issues which have taken place in fora outside the WTO, such as WIPO.

For example, international consensus was reached in WIPO in the area of copyright and related rights in the Information Society. In addition, work is progressing in WIPO with regard to audio-visual performances, broadcasting rights, the sui generis protection of databases, the protection of biotechnological inventions and Internet Domain Names.

There are also a number of important issues on which no agreement was reached in the Uruguay Round and which could form part of a New Round, such as in the patent area with the adoption of the 'first-to-file' system and the inclusion of the International Convention for the protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), both of which remain of major interest to EC rightholders.

These developments are of major relevance for countries in Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union. Some of them are already Members of the WTO: the six countries of Eastern and Central Europe: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania an the Slovak Republic, two Baltic Republics: Estonia and Latvia, and, finally, Georgia (since 14 June 2000), the Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia and Slovenia. These countries already apply the minimum standards contained in the TRIPs Agreement.

With several others, WTO accession negotiations are under way. In fact, this week, the Community will continue its bilateral talks with the Russian Government on its accession to the WTO. In that respect, one crucial question is still on the table: the date by when the Russian Federation will have to apply the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement.

As I said before, the transitional periods under the TRIPs Agreement for developing country WTO Members and WTO Members in transition expired on 1 January 2000. The European Community, therefore, believes that countries in the process of acceding to the WTO should also be able to comply with the TRIPs Agreement as of the date of their accession to the WTO without any recourse to additional transitional periods. This principle was applied to all new WTO Members, including, only recently, with China.

Once WTO Members, these countries will equally be subject to a review of their legislation in the TRIPs Council on the basis of the notification of their national laws to the WTO.

It is, therefore, our hope, that the other countries of the former Soviet Union will join the WTO quickly. This will provide for a framework for the protection for intellectual property rights for the benefit of domestic and foreign right-holders. It will equally create trust and confidence to establish the necessary climate for further co-operation and investment.

Thank you very much for your attention.

* The views expressed are the author's own and do no necessarily bind the European Commission.